22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T495,MEMORANDUM Federal prisoner Dennis Chan Lai appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion as second or successive. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm. The record reflects that Lai had filed a section 2255 motion on November 11,1995, which this court rejected on the merits. Lai subsequently filed another section 2255 motion on April 13, 2007. The district court properly dismissed that motion because Lai had not obtained an order from this Court authorizing it to consider the motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (b)(3)(A); Cooper v. Calderon, 274 F.3d 1270, 1274 (9th Cir.2001) (per curiam). To the extent Lai is applying for an order authorizing a second or successive petition, such request is denied. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (b)(3)(C). We construe Lai’s additional arguments as a motion to expand the certificate of appealability. So construed, the motion is also denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22 — 1(e); see also Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir.1999) (per curiam). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T4cc,

MEMORANDUM

Federal prisoner Dennis Chan Lai appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion as second or successive. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm.

The record reflects that Lai had filed a section 2255 motion on November 11,1995, which this court rejected on the merits. Lai subsequently filed another section 2255 motion on April 13, 2007. The district court properly dismissed that motion because Lai had not obtained an order from this Court authorizing it to consider the motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (b)(3)(A); Cooper v. Calderon, 274 F.3d 1270, 1274 (9th Cir.2001) (per curiam).

To the extent Lai is applying for an order authorizing a second or successive petition, such request is denied. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (b)(3)(C).

We construe Lai’s additional arguments as a motion to expand the certificate of appealability. So construed, the motion is also denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22 — 1(e); see also Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir.1999) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.